w
w
m
e
tr
.X
w
Cambridge Pre-U
9772 Economics June 2012
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
ap
eP
ECONOMICS
om
.c
s
er
Paper 9772/01
Multiple Choice, Short
Answers and Data Response
Key messages
•
In Section B this year several candidates appeared not to know the economics involved in some of
the questions and hence scored very low marks. A wide cross-section of the syllabus is covered by
the questions and it would appear that for some candidates their revision may not have been total
exhaustive of all topics.
•
There were a few candidates who appeared to have run out of time when it came to Section C and
for those who did it was because they had generally written far more than was expected for the
earlier questions with fewer marks, rather than the 2 ¼ hours appearing to be too short a time for the
paper.
General comments
As in previous years, the exam appears to have worked well in providing the candidates with the opportunity
to demonstrate and use their economic knowledge and it acted as a good discriminator between candidates.
At the top and bottom ends candidates did consistently well / poorly on all three sections.
Section A
Multiple Choice Questions
2012
Range of marks 7 – 28 (23% - 93%)
Mean mark 17.85 (59.5%)
Mode 20
2010
Range of marks 9 – 27 (30% - 90%)
Mean mark 17.6 (58.7%)
Mode 17 and 18
2011
Range of marks 9 – 27 (30% - 90%)
Mean mark 17.5 (58.3%)
Mode 17
It was evident that candidates, as expected, found the multiple choice questions to be a challenging part of
the paper. However, with both a slightly higher mean and modal score, it would appear that candidates –
and Centres – are becoming more familiar with the type of question that they will face and hence are
probably less thrown by the harder questions, which can occur at any stage during the 30 questions.
There were no concerns expressed this year by any Centre about the answer to any particular question. As
stated in previous reports, one of the clear aims of CIE with the Pre-U exams is to listen and take on board
the views of Centres – and this has been true from the very start with the discussions over syllabus content
and the means of assessment and continues today with listening and acting upon, when considered
appropriate, the views on the exams.
1
© 2012
Cambridge Pre-U
9772 Economics June 2012
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Section B
As stated above, whilst many candidates did extremely well on this section, there was a sizeable minority
who struggled on some of the questions.
Question 1
(a)
Too many candidates gave a definition of the average propensity to consume rather than the
marginal propensity to consume and hence failed to secure the mark. Whilst many candidates
gave a good, relevant example, too many gave examples such as ‘it’s the extra curry you might
buy, if you get a pay rise’, perhaps showing a too literal interpretation of the word ‘consume’.
(b)
Knowledge of k = 1/ (1 – mpc) is clearly expected of candidates and most were able to come up
with the correct answer of 5.
(c)
Again, many candidates correctly calculated £16bn x 5 = £80bn but candidates were also able to
gain one mark if they multiplied their values even if one of those values of 5 or 16 were incorrect –
no marks were given though for £20bn x 5 - £4bn = £96bn.
Question 2
This question caused several candidates problems as they confused allocative efficiency with profit
maximisation and hence for (a) put MC = MR and then for (b) tried to justify this answer. To gain both marks
for part (b) the examiners were looking for either an explanation that at the margin the costs to society reflect
society’s valuation or that at this point, the combination of consumer and producer surpluses are maximised.
For part (c) marks were awarded either for written explanations or for candidates who clearly showed via a
diagram a deadweight loss with a divergence between (usually) mpc and msc – even if the candidate did not
explicitly state that the free market outcome would not be allocatively efficient.
Question 3
(a)
Several candidates seemed to find this question difficult and examiners wondered if this was
because of the old problem of elasticities being taught in the first year of the course and candidates
having forgotten the topic by the end of the second year. Inevitably given the linear nature of Pre-U
this is something that candidates just cannot afford to do. It should be remembered, of course, that
its linear nature is one of the reasons why UCAS has given the Pre-U grades a slightly higher tariff
than the ‘equivalent’ A Level grade and also why the Chief Examiner believes that candidates are
better equipped to start an economics related course at university after following the Pre-U syllabus
with its terminal assessments. Some candidates failed to follow the instruction to use the figures
provided and lost a mark.
(b)
Surprisingly few candidates seemed able to link the fact of inelastic demand with a fall in total
revenue if the price of the good were to fall.
Question 4
(a)
Most candidates were able to gain these marks although a few candidates failed to differentiate
between an increase in the amount of tax paid as income rises and an increase in the average rate
of tax paid as income rises.
(b)
There were several errors from candidates who seemed to fail to realise that an increase in the
marginal rate of tax did not mean that the higher rate of tax would be paid on the entire income. A
lot of candidates seemed to think that an individual would have a greater post-tax income by
working less / earning less due to a higher pre-tax income causing all of the income to be taxed at
the higher rate. Better candidates were able to express their answer in terms of a fall in the
opportunity cost of an hour of leisure or in terms of the substitution effect making work less
attractive and leisure more attractive.
2
© 2012
Cambridge Pre-U
9772 Economics June 2012
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
Section C
Question 5
The aim of this section is to test both learners’ ability to read articles and be able to pick out the salient parts
and also to apply their knowledge of economics to the particular situations presented to them. In the final
two questions in this section, there are 60% of the marks available for evaluation.
(a)
Most candidates were able to use the information given to calculate the correct answer. One note
of caution would be that although candidates were not required to show working, the Chief
Examiner would always suggest that working is written down to make it clear where the answer has
come from. As can be seen from the mark scheme, an answer of 1.9 million with working shown
gained 2 marks whereas 1.9 million on its own gained just one mark.
(b)
Part (i) was generally correctly answered but several candidates then failed to use this figure – as
expressly required by the question – in answering part (ii). There were also several candidates
who incorrectly took the change in the CPI figure of 22.8 to be the percentage change in inflation.
(c)
This was the question that produced the most problems in Section C. It seems to have become
almost the norm to equate a ‘poverty trap’ with an ‘unemployment trap’ although there is a subtle
difference between the two. Within the mark scheme, candidates were given credit if they talked
about the lack of incentive of getting a job. With part (ii) too many candidates tried to argue that
benefits have already been slashed in recent years by the Coalition Government demonstrating a
clear lack of knowledge of reality. Better candidates talked about recent proposals to cap benefits
and also to tighten up on the eligibility of benefits.
(d)
Both this part and part (e) produced some excellent answers which were well focused, used the
correct stimulus material and which demonstrated a good understanding of the economics involved
and the clear ability to evaluate the proposition put forward. However, several candidates took the
opportunity which, unfortunately, was not presented by this particular question to write an answer
to ‘Should there be a minimum wage?’ Some better candidates were able to, somewhat tenuously,
maintain some focus on the set question and still write a more general answer but it was
disappointing to see so many candidates failing to read the question carefully enough. A point that
the Chief Examiner would stress is for candidates to have a highlighter and to underline the key
words of a question – in this case it would be ‘right’ and ‘age and experience’.
(e)
The final part of the data response question aims to give candidates the greatest opportunity ‘to
think outside the box’ and to demonstrate real originality. This year’s question was answered
excellently by many candidates who approached the question in a very systematic way – namely
looking at the pluses and minuses of the three groups specifically mentioned in the question.
Perhaps surprisingly, a relatively small number of candidates latched on to the facts provided in the
stimulus materials concerning the need for many interns to have private finance to help them both
to secure and to undertake such internships and hence how differences in the distribution of
income (and wealth) could be a issue for potential interns. It was interesting to learn from several
candidates that the Government has been providing massive financial incentives to firms to provide
more intern places. However given the amount of media interest in the schemes that were being
operated by Tesco and the like in recent months, it was surprising to read almost no mentions to
such developments within the answers.
3
© 2012
Cambridge Pre-U
9772 Economics June 2012
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
ECONOMICS
Paper 9772/02
Essays
Key messages
•
It is worth pointing out two areas of weakness which caused a small number of candidates to underachieve: the failure to be precise in the use of technical terms in the subject, and the failure to
explain terms explicitly.
•
Candidates shold be encouraged to use essay plans in their preparation for this examination – see
below.
General Comments
The structure of the paper was unchanged, with candidates required to answer three questions out of a
choice of six, with at least one from each of two sections. There were no cases of candidates failing to
observe the rubric for the paper, and no evidence that candidates experienced severe difficulty in completing
the paper in the 2 hours 15 minutes available. Five of the six essay questions were answered by large
numbers of candidates, though one – Question 1 – attracted very few answers.
The level of difficulty of the questions asked was much as last year, and the quality of scripts was again
generally high, with the majority of them being deemed to be of at least D3 standard (i.e. equivalent to a
grade A at ‘A’ level). There was again no significant difference in the overall quality of the answers to the two
sections of the paper, section A consisting of questions on micro-economics and section B on macroeconomics. At the top level, as in the past, the standard of scripts was outstanding, and usually fairly evenly
so, with the candidates involved producing three answers, all of which were written at a level above grade A
standard at ‘A’ level.
Almost all candidates generally demonstrated a good understanding of relevant economic concepts and
principles in their answers, with clear errors or misunderstandings being very unusual. Explanation of
relevant economic analysis was also generally very sound, and indeed sometimes of very high quality; again,
it was clear that candidates had been impressively prepared. As mentioned above it is, though, perhaps
worth pointing out two areas of weakness which caused a small number of candidates to under-achieve: the
failure to be precise in the use of technical terms in the subject, and the failure to explain terms explicitly. In
this examination, perhaps the most common example of the former was ‘progressive’ in Question 5; a
disappointing number of candidates defined a progressive tax simply as one that ‘taxes the rich more than
the poor’. Fiscal policy, too, in Question 5, was sometimes interpreted as referring only to taxation policy.
With regard to the latter, quite a few candidates answered Question 2 without bothering to state what they
understood by either oligopoly or collusion, or Question 3 without explaining in general what ‘market failure’
means.
As in previous years, the skills of evaluation were generally less evident in some answers than those of
analysis, and generally scripts showed much greater variability in this aspect. The detailed mark scheme
contains much of relevance in this context, and the comments on individual questions below also attempt,
amongst other things, to indicate how the better scripts tended to gain credit for evaluation, but the main
general point is perhaps that candidates who have clearly planned an answer before tackling it seem to
benefit not just in terms of the coherence of their overall answer to a question but also in their ability to gain
credit for evaluation – and since evaluation marks constitute 32% of those available, this clearly has a
significant impact on overall performance. The benefit of essay-planning perhaps derives largely from the
fact that it tends to force candidates to keep the precise wording of the question at the forefront of their mind
from the outset. It is very often in the failure to address the precise question asked that answers fail to gain
the full credit which the quality of economic analysis they contain suggests that they ought. Perhaps it is in
this context that the failure of so many candidates to attempt Question 1 might be considered; the
Examiners, for example – though clearly not the candidates - felt that the great advantage of a relatively
wordy question such as Question 1 is that it ought to be relatively straightforward to produce a plan for it,
4
© 2012
Cambridge Pre-U
9772 Economics June 2012
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
whereas, in contrast, a short question such as Question 2 or Question 5 places more demands on the
candidate to produce a plan before embarking on a detailed answer. Whatever, it cannot be stressed
enough that explicit answering of the precise question asked is the best route to maximising performance in
9772/02.
Comments on individual questions
Question 1
As has previously been said, very few candidates chose to attempt this question, although most who did
produced very good answers, which, given the detail given in the wording of the question, was perhaps not
too surprising. These good answers showed full understanding both of all three demand elasticity concepts,
explaining each clearly, and also of the implications of the given value of each. For example, they explained
that a cross elasticity value of +3.7 with respect to the prices of regular fruit and vegetables implies that the
two categories of products were strongly competitive with each other, so that a 10% rise in the price of
‘regular’ fruit and veg. would result, ceteris paribus, in a 37% rise in the demand for the organic equivalent.
Crucially, too, they focused explicitly on the use a national supermarket might make of the information to
increase profit. One would expect weaker answers not to have made this link so strongly, or perhaps to
have been less explicit on the impact on profit as such.
Responses to the instruction to ‘discuss how --- might use ----’ were varied, and invariably valid, in this
question. They all made the point that the data available derived from a commissioned national survey, of
middle income consumers, so that there were issues as to how representative the results might be, and how
relevant to decision-making on pricing in different possible supermarket locations. Some also considered the
possible impact of the competitive environment in which the supermarket might operate – for example, that
predicting impact on profit may well depend on the response of oligopolistic competitors. Possible non-profitmaximising strategies also provided another valid route to gaining credit for ‘evaluation’, as did consideration
of the extent to which the ceteris paribus aspect of the measurement of elasticities might need to be relaxed
in practice.
Question 2
This was quite a popular question, and the answers varied between merely adequate on the one hand and
excellent at the other extreme. The weaker answers tended to show a decent understanding of what is
meant by an oligopolistic market, but without an appreciation of the range of possible outcomes that this
implies; sometimes they also showed a grasp of a model of oligopoly, but failed to link it to collusion, as was
required by the question. Slightly better answers tended to show a greater awareness of collusion, without
focusing on the features of oligopoly that relate to the likelihood of its occurrence. The best answers,
however, usually considered a range of possible outcomes, often linked to explicit models such as game
theory, and, most importantly, they then discussed specific features of oligopolistic markets, often with
concrete examples to illustrate, which might either encourage or discourage the emergence of collusive
behaviour. This was the crucial factor in determining the level of response achieved by an answer in the
‘theory and analysis’ element of the mark scheme.
‘Evaluation’ again could involve a range of different aspects, and most answers gained at least some credit
in this area. Perhaps the most common approach was to contrast at least one circumstance which tended to
militate against collusion occurring – for example, a strong regulatory environment – with another which
tended to work in the other direction – for example, the existence of significant economies of scale so that a
small number of large firms were likely to dominate the industry involved. Other good evaluative responses
concentrated more on long-run/short-run differences in the likelihood of collusion occurring.
Question 3
This was also a very popular question, which again generated answers covering a wide range of quality. In
particular, there were some at the lower end which seemed to see the mention of alcohol as an excuse to
produce rehearsed answers about market failure in the form of negative externalities. Even when such
answers were accurate – and this was not always the case – they often largely ignored the ‘minimum price’
aspect of the question, or produced analysis of the introduction of a minimum price which was largely
separate from their consideration of the market failure. On the other hand, there were also many good
answers which looked at more than one possible market failure associated with the consumption of alcohol,
and explained in detail how the introduction of a minimum price might ‘tackle’ these failures. At the top level,
there was then also consideration of the crucial aspect of the question, which required consideration of the
‘best way’; this was almost always done via consideration of at least one other possible method for
5
© 2012
Cambridge Pre-U
9772 Economics June 2012
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
addressing the problems identified – usually both taxes and regulation were considered, in fact. Answers
which took this approach were already showing skills of evaluation, of course, and quite a number were
particularly impressive in that they in effect set up criteria, even if only implicitly, for coming to a conclusion
as to which method or methods might be viewed as providing the ‘best way’.
Question 4
The general standard of answers to this question was quite good. The topic of macroeconomic objectives,
and possible conflicts between them, is clearly one with which candidates are very familiar, and indeed most
seemed reasonably confident in explaining and manipulating relevant economic theory. There were a few
weak answers that showed limited awareness of any relationship between inflation and unemployment, but
the large majority of answers had at least some idea, with appropriate explanation, of at least an elementary
relationship between the two, and its implication for the impossibility of simultaneous achievement of
satisfactory levels of both. Most, too, were able to go further, in considering alternative relationships, often
linked to the use of long-term supply side economic policies; a number of such answers showed
considerable sophistication in their use of economic analysis. Evaluation in this question tended to consider
the viability of inflation-targeting in practice, and the desirability or otherwise of governments prioritising
between the two stated objectives. Others also stressed the need to take into account other possible
government macroeconomic objectives, such as growth or inequality-reduction, or looked at the possibility
that perhaps inflation might be prioritised in some circumstances but unemployment in others. Overall, it was
a question where relatively few answers failed to come up with a considered conclusion which was explicitly
responding to the wording of the question.
Question 5
This was a popular question, and elicited some excellent answers, though it also perhaps generated a larger
proportion of relatively weak answers than the other five questions. This was partly because quite a number
of candidates were somewhat imprecise in their use of terms – sometimes fiscal policy, sometimes
progressiveness/regressiveness and sometimes both. But it was also because there were quite a few
answers that may have described how fiscal policy measures may reduce income inequality reasonably well,
but then went little further. Better answers, of course, also considered possible problems in the effectiveness
of the policies in achieving the stated objective, and also addressed the ‘alone’ aspect of the question. This
required some consideration of other possible methods of attempting to reduce inequality – supply-side
policies and direct regulation were the most commonly explained, with links between the policies and their
likely effects on income inequality usually made explicitly. Evaluation was also usually impressive within
such answers, with a clear answer to the question asked given directly, though weaker responses tended to
be content with more general statements and to ignore the ‘alone’ aspect.
Question 6
There was again a wide range of quality of answers to this question, and it was probably the question in
Section B in which the general quality of evaluation was least impressive. Most answers satisfactorily
identified the general benefits of free trade, although the weaker ones tended not to be so clear as to who
are the ‘winners’, and most too were able to identify in broad terms the case or cases which are generally
made for protectionism. However, the question required more than this. Its explicit focus on MEDCs, for
example, tended to be ignored in weaker answers, which therefore often failed to make much headway in
terms of evaluation since their response to the wording of the question was at best somewhat peripheral.
More generally, though, quite a few answers merely explained the benefits which some in MEDCs would
gain if their industry were protected in some way, with little attempt to assess whether or not this in itself was
a sufficient reason for arguing that therefore protectionism is desirable. Of course, there were also answers
of much greater quality; these not only showed the ability to analyse the case for protectionism in the
circumstances identified in the question, but also evaluated it. This often involved consideration both of the
position of the ‘winners’ from free trade, and of the case that even the apparent short-term beneficiaries from
the protectionism might not benefit in the longer-run.
6
© 2012
Cambridge Pre-U
9772 Economics June 2012
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
ECONOMICS
Paper 9772/03
Investigation
Key messages
•
•
Candidates are encouraged to reach a judgement at the end of their answer which is supported by
data relating to the context and/or the application of relevant theory.
Some candidates had clearly not undertaken sufficient independent investigation and this severely
hampered their efforts. See below for further comment.
General comments
Responses to this paper were generally of a similar standard to previous years. Once again, there were a
good number of excellent responses produced by candidates who had clearly completed extensive individual
research and had a comprehensive grasp of the context. These candidates were also generally able to
accurately apply a range of relevant economic concepts from the specification to the set question in order to
produce answers of impressive scope and depth.
Unfortunately, there were a significant number of responses which demonstrated a lack of clear and up-todate understanding of the context. This was often a major impediment to the production of a detailed and
relevant answer. Some candidates had clearly not undertaken sufficient independent investigation and this
severely hampered their efforts. Those who did investigate were able to respond to the question
appropriately by selecting the relevant data and analysis from the body of their research. They generally had
a good critical awareness of the context and were able to maintain an objective discussion using clear
examples to support their arguments. Those who had not investigated had only a small number of
superficial examples which were often not relevant to the question. They also lacked sufficient depth of
knowledge of the context to respond to the specific question and often latched on to initially attractive, but
ultimately superficial and one-sided, arguments to support their case.
The very best answers demonstrated an impressive unity of theory and application, actively using economic
theory in context to answer the specific question. Unfortunately, some candidates used very little theory or
did so in a tokenistic way by including a diagram or concept but not making effective use of it in the analysis.
The structure of answers was again very good but evaluation remained an afterthought for many.
Comments on specific questions
Question 1 Transport and the Environment
This was the second most popular question and candidates were generally quite well informed about the
context. They generally had a good understanding of the environmental problems caused by the use of
fossil fuels, although there was a tendency to focus exclusively on atmospheric pollution leading to climate
change and to therefore miss the impact on the local environment and, for example, the health of citydwellers. Alternative energy sources were also clearly understood, although many candidates focused on
only one form of energy and this tended to weaken their evaluation as the arguments tended to apply only to
that form of energy. Many candidates also focused entirely on cars when there was plenty that could have
been said about other modes of transport.
The application of economic theory was generally good, although some candidates made simple mistakes on
the externalities diagram which, given that it is the key diagram for this topic, should have been avoided.
Once again there were few references to macroeconomic concepts even though there were opportunities to
discuss emissions targets at both the UK and EU Levels as well as the potential impacts, both positive and
negative, on macroeconomic performance as a result of adopting alternative fuel technologies. Such an
7
© 2012
Cambridge Pre-U
9772 Economics June 2012
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
approach also offered the opportunity to consider transport fuel technology as part of a wider issue of energy
provision across all sectors of the economy. Some candidates also missed the opportunity to discuss
sustainability issues.
Some responses included a good range of interesting, and occasionally rather esoteric, case-study
examples to support their answer. This demonstrated effective investigation and allowed those candidates to
deepen both the analysis and the evaluation as they were able to grapple with specific, rather than generic,
arguments. Some candidates were unable to resist the temptation to describe their case-study examples in
great detail. This clearly reduced the time available to them for meaningful analysis and therefore weakened
their answers.
Once again, there was a lack of selectivity in some answers and candidates were keen to share their
learning with the Examiner, whether it was relevant to the question at hand or not. It is perfectly acceptable,
for example, to conclude that alternative fuel technologies do not offer a solution and to give a brief indication
of more appropriate policies. However, to reach this conclusion at the half-way stage and to use the rest of
the essay to explain the merits of road pricing will not gain much credit.
Evaluation was generally done, but was often vague and generic. The best answers demonstrated
knowledge of specific government policies and possible future policies. This allowed them to engage in
informed discussion and to reach suitably nuanced judgements.
Question 2 China and the Global Economy
This was the most popular question and responses were generally well structured and demonstrated a clear
awareness of the nature of supply constraints. However, whilst many candidates were very well informed
and had up-to-date knowledge of the context, there were still a significant minority referring, for example to
China’s ‘fixed exchange rate’. Whilst this information is clearly some years out of date, many candidates
also suffered from using data that was merely months out of date. This could result in a severely weakened
answer if they relied upon these data in their conclusions. For example, numerous answers referred to the
inability of the Chinese government to control inflation despite employing a very tight monetary policy. In
fact, at the time of the examination, inflation had been falling for many months and monetary policy had been
significantly relaxed. It is difficult for candidates to write a convincing answer and draw pertinent conclusions
when they do not have accurate knowledge of current macroeconomic conditions.
There were very many fewer highly descriptive answers this year. A few candidates persisted in offering a
potted history of modern China on the first page, but this rarely had a negative impact on the overall quality
of the answer.
Apart from a few responses of exceptional quality the use of economic theory continues to be rather
disappointing in relation to this question. Many candidates missed the opportunity to use AS/AD diagrams
despite the fact that the question was fundamentally concerned with supply-side analysis. Some who drew
the diagrams did not really use them or describe what they hoped to show with the diagram, presumably
assuming that the meaning was obvious. Relatively few candidates made a useful distinction between short
and long-run outcomes.
The best answers considered the issue of productivity in some depth and recognised that relative real unit
factor costs are important when considering international competitiveness. Disappointingly, the vast majority
of answers failed to make this conceptual leap and assumed that rising nominal costs must necessarily
reduce the comparative advantage of the Chinese economy.
Some answers made good use of development theories, including the Lewis and Harrod-Domar models.
However, candidates should guard against the temptation to explain these models in great detail. They key
is to use them rather than explain them in a textbook fashion.
Analysis of the labour market was generally good and many candidates were able to bring specific
knowledge of the Chinese context to bear, by referring to the Hukou system, for example. However, many
otherwise good answers did not adopt a systematic approach by considering each of the factors of
production in turn.
The vast majority of candidates recognised the need to engage in discussion and to attempt to maintain an
objective approach. However, many took an idea with a kernel of truth and extrapolated it into a
generalisation which often demonstrated a lack of objectivity and critical awareness. Many responses, for
example, asserted that the Chinese education system is very poor and that there is no official school leaving
8
© 2012
Cambridge Pre-U
9772 Economics June 2012
Principal Examiner Report for Teachers
age. The second part of this assertion is factually incorrect and the first part makes the mistake of comparing
the value of human capital in China with that of the UK or USA, rather than with economies at a similar level
of economic development.
Most candidates recognised the need to reach a conclusion at the end, but many were unable to add
anything new in their final paragraphs and resorted to listing the key points that had already been made.
Question 3 Expansion of the EU
A small number of candidates answered this question. The responses generally showed some knowledge of
the context, although theoretical understanding of the Single European Market (SEM) was generally weak.
Most candidates focused well on the question and there was relatively little unnecessary descriptive detail.
Few candidates had sufficient understanding of the SEM to engage in a well structured response to the
answer. For example, there was little discussion of the extent to which convergence had been achieved or of
the degree of competition in enlarged markets which were issues central to the question. This was a little
disappointing as the enlargement of the SEM is one of the key theoretical advantages of EU enlargement.
Candidates were also substantially distracted by recent events in the EU and some spent a good deal of time
discussing events in Greece and the broader context of the Eurozone crisis which was, at best, only
peripherally relevant to the question.
As in previous years there was relatively little convincing data relating to the experience of enlargement and
the tangible costs and benefits to date. This was disappointing and demonstrated a lack of meaningful and
focused research into the topic area. Most of the contextual data was either historic or not directly related to
the question. As a result, the discussion and conclusions were sometimes more relevant to a broad
consideration of the value of the EU rather than being specifically focused on enlargement.
Question 4 The Pensions Crisis
It was pleasing to see that some candidates answered this question, although only a very small number did
so. They demonstrated some understanding of the crisis and were able to produce clearly structured
answers with some discussion.
However, the answers were generally very descriptive and contained insufficient economic analysis. They
also tended to simplify the pensions crisis and concentrated on one aspect of it, namely the alleged
‘unaffordable’ nature of public sector pensions. Thus the wider problems of under-provision and underconsumption were largely ignored and this significantly reduced the potential scope of both analysis and
evaluation.
9
© 2012